i actually like everything he says in this blog except for the 2-3-2 playoff format. i just think that would give too much of an advantage to the lower ranked team. i think it's good for the finals, but not the playoffs. in the playoffs, a 2-3-2 format would increase the chances of an upset and therefore erase the rest of fitz's arguement.

we've talked about the pros and cons of a ranked bracket on this message board plenty of times before...but never really included conference and schedule changes with them. i actually think this way makes a lot more sense as far as scheduling. what do you guys think?

"the victorious warrior wins first, and then goes to war; the defeated warrior goes to war first, and hopes to win."- The Art of War

TMC wrote:Nobody would be saying anything about this if we were Hawks fans.

I'm not against discussing changes, but talking about chaning the playoff system right after being left out by an anomaly in league history looks a bit hypocritical.

actually i've been looking for this type of change since at least '97. i cant say before that because i didnt really understand much of the rules of the league and the process everything has to go through. just the fact that for the past few years, the west has dominated the east, it never seemed fair to me that teams that are worse in record (especially when they have more games against the weaker teams) are making the playoffs over other teams. it's just that this year, it's become a more apparent problem seeing that the warriors were only 2 games below 50 wins which any other year could have damn well been enough for home court advantage.

i also think that by making such a change would strengthen the east and eventually balance out the powers in the conferences. i think that GMs would be forced to make moves to make their team better in a sense that they'll be looking for players that could help them win against the league rather than just their conference. since it takes less to get into the playoffs in the east, a team like atlanta or philly could make the playoffs despite not being a very good team. if the TOP 16 teams made the playoffs, teams like philly and atlanta would be forced to make their teams A LOT better in order to make the playoffs.

"the victorious warrior wins first, and then goes to war; the defeated warrior goes to war first, and hopes to win."- The Art of War

I actually think the most important part of Fitz's proposal is the realignment of divisions. Not only would it be beneficial to the teams because it would limit their travel, but it would also help balance out the powers and make it less likely that one division or conference will be on top for an extended period of time. Plus it will also help foster geographical rivalries which is good for the league and will help boost fan bases.

It's an incredibly well thought out proposal and I really hope that the powers-that-be take a serious look at it and at least consider the benefits it would have to the league and the players.

I have to say, this is the most thoughtful, equitable and rational proposal I have read on the issue. I had known how dominant the West has been, but 58%! That is absurd. For a team like Atlanta (or even wretched Cleveland) to be in there and GS and Portland to not be is wrong. Fitzgerald's solution ensures some Eastern representation, but addresses the inequities of road travel and unbalanced conferences. I am guessing he must have some pull to get this to Stern. Hope it helps.

To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

Fitz can be annoying about defending the greatness of Notre Dame all the time, but he is a really smart guy. He has said that the league has sought out his and Barnett's opinions on things like officiating because they are respected for their opinions and observations and I believe that.

The Eastern playoff games I have seen are terrible and reinforces the need for change.